Consolidating Caixabank SA (C‑224/19) and CaixaBank SA (C‑565/21) in Case C-39/2024 of 30 April 2025, the Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled on the transparency of arrangement fees and further clarified the threshold for meeting its requirements.
Facts of the case
In November 2005, Just and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria concluded a loan agreement secured by a mortgage. According to the contract, upon signing the agreement, Justa had to pay an arrangement fee equal to 0.25% of the capital loan. Justa brought an action before the Court of First Instance of Ceuta against Banco Bilbao seeking a declaration that the term establishing the arrangement fee was unfair.
Question referred
The Court of First Instance of Ceuta referred two questions, one of which is admissible. The second, regarding the application of Directive 2014/17/EU is inapplicable ratione temporis.
By the admissible question, the referring court is asking whether Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (hereinafter, UCTD) must be interpreted as precluding the case law of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) which considers the term imposing an arrangement fee to remunerate services ‘connected with the examination, granting or processing of the mortgage loan’, to be transparent without the term specifying the services supplied in exchange for the fee or the time needed to perform them (para 28).
Ruling
First, the CJEU observes that a term establishing an arrangement fee cannot be considered as pertaining to the main subject matter of the contract. The essential obligations of a credit contract are in fact that the lender ‘undertakes (…) to make available to the borrower a certain sum of money and that the latter undertakes (…) to repay that sum’ (para 31). With this, the CJEU further consolidates its ruling in Caixabank and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (C-224/19 and C-259/19, EU:C:2020:578, para 64).
Irrespective, Article 5 of the UCTD imposes the same requirement for transparency for contractual terms in writing, which, as per that provision, must ‘always’ be written in plain and intelligible language. As already noted in 2023 in Caixabank (Loan arrangement fees), C-565/21, the requirement for transparency of Article 4(2) has the same scope as the requirement laid down in Article 5. Therefore, the question of the referring court must be reformulated with reference to Article 5 instead of Article 4(2).
The CJEU holds that the requirement should not be understood as only demanding that the terms are formally and grammatically intelligible. The transparency of the terms must be understood broadly, in light of the provision’s rationale that is to protect consumers’ weaker position vis-à-vis businesses (see also Caixabank (Loan arrangement fees), C-565/21, EU:C:2023:212, para 30). The consumer must be able to understand what ‘economic consequences’ derive for her or him from the term (para 38, emphasis added) and the ‘nature of the services’ she or he receives (para 39, emphasis added).
The national court will be in charge of determining whether the financial institution has provided sufficient information for her or him to understand the content and functioning of the term (para 40). The court will thus assess the transparency of the terms, taking into consideration ‘all the relevant factual elements’, which include also the advertising that the bank makes of the particular agreement (para 41; see also Caixabank (Loan arrangement fees), C-565/21, EU:C:2023:212, para 40).
To summarise, the transparency requirement is intended to ensure that the consumer can assess the financial consequences of the term. Crucially, the requirement does not entail that the bank must detail the nature of the services supplied or the number of hours devoted to offering those services (para 44).
The Court concludes that, like in the case at hand, where the legislation defines the term imposing the arrangement fee as remuneration for services connected with the examination, granting or processing of the mortgage loan, it is not necessary that the term includes ‘a detailed description of the nature of those services or an indication of the time devoted to their performance’ (para 47).
It is however necessary that ‘the consumer has indeed been placed in a position to assess the economic consequence for him or her, to understand the nature of the services (…) and to ascertain that there is no overlap between the various costs provided for in the contract or between the services for which those costs are paid’ (para 47).
The national case law of the Supreme Court is thus not precluded by Article 5 of the UCTD.
